Saturday, December 05, 2015

Eyes Wide Shut: Political Correctness and Islam

Remember that "Attack
Watch" slogan of Obama's near the end of his first term, "If you
see something, say something," when he was trying to get Americans to
inform on other Americans who were vocally critical of him? In this case, Syed Farook's
neighbors saw something, but didn't say anything, for fear of being labeled
racists or Islamophobes or profilers.

Anticipating a nasty fight in 2012, President
Obama's re-election campaign on Tuesday launched a site, called AttackWatch.com ,
designed to push back against attacks on the president's record.

"We all remember the birth certificate
smear, the GOP's barrage of lies about the Affordable Care Act, and the string
of other phony attacks on President Obama that we've seen over the past few
years," Jim Messina, Obama for America's campaign manager, wrote in an
email to the president's supporters. "There are a lot of folks on the other
side who are chomping at the bit to distort the President's record. It's not a
question of if the next big lie will come, just when -- and what we're prepared
to do about it."

Yet
so far, the site seems to have been most effective at giving conservatives more
ammunition against the president. Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin is
referring the initiative as the "snitch police squad", while the conservative site
Human Events is calling it the "little
brother initiative." The Drudge Report, the news aggregating site
popular among conservatives, features a link to AttackWatch.com under the
headline, "See something, say something," in reference to the
Department of Homeland Security's public awareness campaign.

Its “public awareness campaign” to the contrary
notwithstanding, the DHS has done its bit in frightening Americans to not “say
something,” being one of the biggest vehicles of politically correct thought
and speech. And Redlands neighbors’ not “saying something” worked out very
well, to Barack Obama's benefit. It allowed him to dig up that hoary old
chestnut, “workplace violence,” and also to grandstand again for more gun
controls.

Had these
neighbors the courage
to notify law enforcement authorities about the frequent presence of Middle
Eastern-looking strangers in the vicinity and the unusual activities at
Farook’s house, the San Bernardino terrorist attack would not have occurred.
The police would have found the arsenal of weapons and pipe bombs in Farook’s
house. They would have pulled up the DHS’s record of Farook’s comings and
goings. They would probably have found the packaging those weapons and
materials came in. They might have learned the true identity of Farook’s
“wife,” and where she actually came from.

They would have discovered, not the makings of a neighborhood
Tupperware party, but the preparations for another major Islamic jihadist
attack.

All that might have happened had not many Americans
been intimidated by the MSM and the White House and the PC police into “not
saying something” to the authorities.

On one hand, one can't blame them for not speaking
up. How many Americans today want to risk being painted with the “racist,”
“Islamophobe,” “bigot” brush, and often to their own detriment? How many of
them could afford the legal representation to counter the smears?

Another Islamic Face of Evil,

Tashfeen Malik, Farook’s
wife

On the other hand, how many of them have allowed
their minds to shut down, to allow their freedom of speech to be abridged by
the risk of inviting slurs and character assassination? To shut down one’s mind
is an act of volition, of choice. How many of them see what they see yet
contemplate it with “eyes wide shut” – that is, seeing the evidence before
their eyes yet denying or suppressing its reality and significance? How many
are guilty of refusing to acknowledge reality, the facts, and the truth?

How
much lower will America sink before it regains its senses? Wednesday, two
Muslims walked into a Christmas party at a community service center in San
Bernardino, California where one worked. They were wearing body armor and video
cameras and carrying automatic rifles, pipe bombs and pistols. They opened
fire, killed 14, and wounded 17.

The
murderers, Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik were killed by police.

Speaking
to the Daily News, Farook’s father said his son, “was very religious. He
would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.” Farook’s neighbor
told the paper that over the past two years, Farook exchanged his Western dress
for Islamic gowns and grew a beard.

These
data points lead naturally to the conclusion that Farook and his wife were
jihadists who killed in order to kill in the name of Islam.

But
in America of December 2015, natural conclusions are considered irresponsible,
at best.

Farook’s neighbor ought to have reported the
transformation to the authorities. He didn’t. He was unable or unwilling to
follow those “data points” to a conclusion. He could only sense where they
could lead to. Possibly he was afraid of immediate repercussions, of personal
recrimination if it turned out that Farook wasn’t
up to no good. Just because Farook was looking more and more like a standard,
unassimilated Muslim and less like one who was well-adjusted to American
standards, apparently wasn’t good enough a reason to take action.

I have few occasions or reasons to quote Franklin
D. Roosevelt, but there is one thing he said early in his first inaugural address in
1933, a statement whose sentiment applies today as well as it did eighty-two
years ago. The sentiment has always stuck in my mind because it intrigued me.

This
great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So,
first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear
is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed
efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Fear of something can cause one to not take action
against that something. Fearful indecision can emasculate one’s capacity for
action against that which causes one’s fear.

One
of the two people involved in the San Bernardino attack that killed 14 people pledged
allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State, the clearest indication yet that
this was an act of terrorism, according to two law enforcement officials.

The clearest
indication? Isn’t that evidence enough? It’s just an indication, which together with all the other evidence proves an
attack by Islamic jihadists, with or without ISIS’s endorsement or sanction? I
keep picturing our dhimmified FBI
putting its finger to the wind to determine which way it’s blowing. How
scientific, how technologically advanced! You aren’t allowed to think “Islam,”
but in the end, you must think “Islam.” Thinking and not-thinking of something
can only lead to the destruction of one’s mind. We see that in the fancy
epistemological dance steps our authorities are taking. But reality is
merciless and won't let you get away with not
seeing. A cannot be A and non-A at the same time.

Since
the massacre Wednesday — which also wounded 21 people — officials have
scrambled to determine whether they were looking at a terrorist attack or an
extremely unusual and lethal case of workplace
violence. They have also revealed that the attackers had amassed an
arsenal of explosives and ammunition, suggesting the possibility of further
violence. [Italics mine.]

Workplace violence? That bewilderingly
evasive, politically correct, and obscene, cowardly term “popularized” by Janet
Napolitano when she was head of the DHS, on the occasion of the Fort Hood
massacre by Nidal Hasan? After all, Farook and Malik entered Farook’s
“workplace” and proceed to do violence against its employees. Ergo, it was
“workplace violence”! (Actually, the term has a long history, and
has gone by other names, so she didn’t coin it, strictly speaking. She merely
revived it, which caused ongoing mockery of her and of the term.)

The
official said the FBI was perplexed in the days after the attack and was
still searching for clues that would indicate radicalization on the part
of either one.

There’s Islam, the “peaceful” religion. And then
there’s “radicalized” Islam. There’s the “peaceful” Islam which calls for
killing Jews, enslaving or killing non-Muslim infidels, in the name of Allah,
commanded by Mohammad. And then there’s “radicalized” Islam, which calls for
killing Jews, enslaving or killing non-Muslim infidels, in the name of Allah,
commanded by Mohammad. We mustn’t confuse the two, you see. It’s so easy to be
“perplexed” about a motive. However, you can no more “radicalize” Islam than
you can find the square root of one. You can't be “radicalized” by Islam unless
you are open to committing violence, not unless you have a simmering urge to
kill that’s repressed but screaming to get out. You can’t be “radicalized” by a
nihilistic “religion” unless there’s a kernel of nihilism in you already,
nurtured by Islam.

“The
FBI is chasing down any contacts these two may have had and whether those
contacts are indicative of radicalization or external plotting or are purely
incidental,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the
House Intelligence Committee.

The
congressman said the shooting did not appear to be “an act of spontaneous
workplace violence.” But, he said, it could have been the culmination of a
longer-term grievance.

What a priceless understatement: The massacre could
have been “the culmination of a longer-term grievance”!Such as a hatred of the West, of America, of
life itself? No, the congressman and his ilk in the MSM and law enforcement
refuse to entertain that impolitic possibility. They wouldn’t want to appear to
be bigoted against Islam.

In the meantime, Attorney General Loretta Lynch
wasted no time inveighing against, not the killers, but “anti-Muslim rhetoric.”
I am assuming that this and my other columns over the years about Muslims and
Islam qualify as “anti-Muslim rhetoric.” I call it freedom of speech. I call it
identifying evil and expounding on why it thrives in this country and why Islam
has no place in America. Lynch delivered her remarks at the 10th anniversary
celebration of the founding of Muslim
Advocates, which, like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-connected Council
on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), is a
purported Muslim civil rights organization.

“My
message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is ‘We cannot
give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on,’” Lynch said.

Geller:
What backlashes?
Americans have been slaughtered at a Christmas party in the cause of Allah.
This is Sharia enforcement. This is sedition by the Obama administration. This
should not be the response of the wholesale slaughter of American
“unbelievers.”

Speaking
at Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner, the attorney general said, “We cannot give in to the fear that these
backlashes are really based on.” Speaking at Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary
dinner, Lynch said since the terrorist attacks in Paris last month, she is
increasingly concerned with the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim
rhetoric … that fear is my greatest fear.”

Disturbing anti-Muslim rhetoric? Where? In the
streets? At home? Oh, that’s right. On blog spots like Geller’s and Robert
Spencer’s and Daniel Greenfield’s and a dozen more, including my own. Or in the
statements of political candidates. Her greatest fear is not about possibly being
gunned down by Muslims in combat gear at her
Christmas party. And she isn’t much concerned about the victims in Paris or the
victims in San Bernardino. Her sympathy rests with the alleged victims of that “anti-Muslim
backlash,” a “backlash” that never actually materializes.

Following
the Paris attacks, there has been an uptick
in violent attacks on Muslims and threats against mosques across the
country. That, combined with heated political rhetoric such as GOP presidential
front runner Donald Trump’s call to register Muslim Americans, has Muslim
community leaders worried that they could be facing a new era of
discrimination.

Lynch
made it clear that she shares those concerns, but vowed to use the DOJ to
protect Muslims from discrimination and violence. Noting the rise in violence
against Muslims and mosques in the wake of the Paris attacks, Lynch added that,
“When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions
predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are
not what we do, andthey will be prosecuted.”

So, by “predication,” is Lynch saying that if
someone reads my column and goes out and smears a mosque door with pig’s blood,
or gives a Muslim the finger on a public street, my “violent talk” – what a
contradiction! Talk isn’t “violent, it has no metaphysical power to hurt anyone,
except perhaps their ‘feeling’” – he could be arrested and charged with a hate
crime, and I could be charged with “hate speech”? See the video of Lynch
pontificating on “violent talk” here,
courtesy of the Daily Wire.

Has she anything to say about the “violent talk” or
“anti-infidel rhetoric” that can be found on various Internet social media that
can “radicalize” the Farooks and Maliks of America and which “predicates” their violence? Probably not.

On
Thursday a leading ISIS propagandist who tweets under the handle Muslimah
congratulated Farook and Malik for the San Bernardino assault, calling them
martyrs.

"May
Allah Accept Our Brother & Sister who were martyred after carrying out an
operation against Crusaders in USA," she tweeted.

I'll bet you didn’t know that people with disabilities and in
wheelchairs attending a Christmas party were “Crusaders.” But if you’re not
surprised, it means that you know that Islamic jihadists regard civilians and
non-combatants and even children as legitimate targets, just as Jews are in
Israel and everywhere else.

"What is greatly concerning to us is
the rise, I remember 9/11 and those were very disturbing days, I heard some
disturbing things from people that I never thought I would hear (Video appears
to have been edited at this point to remove something Lynch said) the rise of
the internet, the ability of people to issue hateful speech of all types from
the anonymity of a screen obviously increases that hateful rhetoric," she
added.

"Now obviously this is a country that
is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the
potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric... when we
see that, we will take action."

Lynch
is “edging towards” committing the violence of government censorship. This should
not surprise anyone. Obama nominated her as a soul-mate who would fit his
political agenda, and she was Attorney General Eric Holder’s first choice of
successor in that office.

Muslim
Advocates, headed by Farhana Khera, who peppered a smiling Lynch with
questions about "anti-Muslim rhetoric", had played a significant role
in crippling DOJ investigations of Islamic terrorism by eliminating training
materials about Islamic terrorism.

Khera had vocally
opposed the sorts of sting operations that had succeeded in capturing a number
of ISIS terror plotters before they were able to act. A similar sting might
have stopped the San Bernardino massacre. She had opposed the FBI recruiting
informants and supported Muslim leaders linked to terrorism. She had even
defended terror charities like the Holy Land Foundation.

And she and another
Muslim Advocates figure had urged Muslims not to provide information to the
FBI. "Any information you provide to the FBI can be used as the basis for
further surveillance and investigation of your community," a Muslim
Advocates lawyer had said. "So you really don't want to be putting
yourself in a situation where you're providing anybody with information about
people in your community that the FBI is now gonna follow up and start investigating
those people."

Loretta
Lynch, Farhana Khera, and Tashfeen Malik – a “Band of Sisters”
and enemies of America, united in their resolve to punish
“thoughtcrime,” “hate
speech,” and “Islamophobia,” and any other kind of thought and speech
they can
think of. As long as it can be throttled and prohibited by Sharia law.
Political correctness is one of Islam's most effective allies.

Political
correctness is a destructive censoring power itself. One can choose to censor
oneself, or it can be imposed on one by an external “authority.” It demands
that we see without seeing – “eyes wide shut” – and become easy prey for the murderous
“crusaders” of Islam or their mouthpieces and defenders. Their purpose is the
conquest of our minds – or their erasure.

On a technical note, from Canada your blog appears as ...blogger.ca while this Comment page is blogger.com I've read that Google has done this for the event that a non-USA state censors / shuts them down, it would be limited to a single country. My own experimenting with a blog is like that: design in blogger.com, but viewing at blogger.ca It gives the impression to readers (a ruse) that the blog originates locally. The pro's are half expecting (?) censorship, in the Americas!